I understand what blizzard says, i’m asking what maldiva said that violates any of that. Can’t you read? Or has your desire to redefine words extended to subject/objects in other people’s writing, as well?
If Blizzard wanted to ban the word Waffles from the game and forums… I’d be sad… but I wouldn’t speak of waffles.
I like waffles… especially warm, with sweet cream butter, and heated maple syrup.
2 Likes
Damn, your post got hidden right before my eyes for stating such a benign and completely reasonable question.
Yeah I hate society, Newtons third law of physics is that for ever action, there is an equal but opposite reaction and every time I see more and more thought and speech policing on the internet I go out of my way to be even more toxic out of spite
If words are too much for you I’ve got an entire list of LowTierGod quotes to run by you
1 Like
Not if it’s illegal you keep missing the legal part
only way to force change on companies is through making laws that force it.
They can’t file an insurance claim unless they file a police report. And if they file a police report, it is no longer their decision whether or not to press charges. The idea behind larceny being a criminal offense is that widespread theft would be detrimental to society as a whole because it would create economic instability.
2 Likes
The TOS has been largely unchanged from day one of Vanilla, my guy. They’ve stepped up enforcement in recent years compared to then and put out a re-worded “Social Contract” for emphasis and clarity, but actions against players always been reactive based on reports, and the rules for player conduct (aside from the ones that changed like where and when you can advertise in-game services) have been identical since launch.
Mirasol has a nice breakdown here:
If y’all are mad NOW about not being able to say whatever thought flits into your head on internet websites, repeal 230 lawsuit immunity and everything you put anywhere will need moderator approval before it even gets posted (and that approval will rarely be granted) because no company with a presence on the internet will want to take on legal liability for what the users of their service have to say.
You guys have got yourselves all twisted up on an issue that shoots you in the foot because a couple of dudes want to be able to sue Facebook for letting people say mean things about them, it’s actually pretty hilarious to watch how easy it is for talking heads who are worshipped like cult leaders to get people to demand change that goes against their own self interests.
2 Likes
You agree with his bigotry so there’s really no point in engaging you on this subject.
2 Likes
Ofc you don’t see the point, but here’s one. Their tax dollars go to the public schools, why should they have to pay? And if their children are the majority of the student population, who are you to force your teaching on them, contrary to their beliefs? Thats indoctrination.
Legal under sharia law.
Why can’t you just say what is transphobic about what he said? I’m not going to report you for it, if you get too crass i’ll just ignore/mute. Whats so hard about it?
You quoted me, asked me what terms he violated, I answered you on what they say he violated and you ask me if I can’t read?
1 Like
Okay but based on their wording, the entire ToS could change at any time. And at that point, your choices are to either accept it or lose your account. You didn’t address this.
Maldiva did nothing wrong. 2+2=4
2 Likes
Yes, because I don’t see what part of it he violated. So having restated what i’m asking again, what did he say that violated the ToS?
he did and didnt based on the world view and beliefs of the person who made the choice saying he did. thats about the best of an answer i can give without picking sides.
1 Like
They posted on their twitter what they said that got them banned. I’m not going to re-post it here because obviously if it’s ban worthy I don’t want it taken out of context
3 Likes
Okay. So we’re just moving goal posts here which is, I suppose where the situation is becoming muddled. I started with robbery/larceny, which I said was a criminal/prosecutable offense. Then you moved it backwards to shoplifting being a non-prosecutable offense. To now we’re back up to larceny. I don’t feel like we’re making any progress because I have no idea what you’re trying to argue or clarify here.
1 Like
Kind of is?
Click scroll down thing. Yoink clear to bottom. Takes all of 1 second. Modern Problems Modern Solutions and all that.
Granted. I’m not claiming the moral high ground here. I’m just making an appeal to convenience.
I could be reading legalese or I could be playing a game I paid money for. … decisions
Granted. And this is one of those wierd situations where you would actually read the thing. Probably because you saw a thing on the internet which advised you ahead of time to do so, to screenshot it, pick up your phone, speed dial your lawyer, and start proceedings. Because you’re sure as heck not going to go to court against HUGE Multinational Company with Army of Lawyers otherwise.
No. You’re just going to keep your head down and be a good boy and do your best not to get kicked off the service.
Yeah, but unfortunately that’s part of the “Click No. Request Refund” strategy of opting out of an agreement. Inability to get a refund effectively pulls your teeth.
I would contend that it’s extremely relevant. The people I game with have a tendency to drag me from game to game. They’re probably already in whatever the game is waiting on me.
That being said, yes, reading and accepting the ToS is my responsibility. It’d be great if navigating this agreement didn’t involve a law degree and participating in it wasn’t as one sided as Accept-Or-Die.